Strategically incomprehensible

ON Wednesday last week, a majority of senators decided to vote against the proposed rescission of the Anti-Fake News Act 2018 (AFNA); a decision that is politically short-sighted, strategically incomprehensible and logically irrational.
More significant, by orchestrating this legislative defeat for the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration, the former ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition missed a golden opportunity.
Endorsing the abrogation of the AFNA – widely-criticised by lawyers and commentators (including this columnist) – introduced by former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak weeks before the 14th general election held on May 9 this year, would have sent a strong signal to all Malaysians that BN was ready to abandon the past and forge a new beginning.
BN senators' inexplicable stance on this issue is noteworthy for several reasons.
First, BN senators delayed passage of the bill to abolish the AFNA, rather than rescinding this law.
At the Dewan Negara last week, 28 senators opposed the abrogation of AFNA, 21 voted in support while three abstained.
One year later, the bill to repeal the AFNA can be re-tabled in Parliament. Given the strong majority the ruling PH coalition enjoys in the Dewan Rakyat, the bill is likely to be passed again by the lower house next year.
If the Dewan Negara again withholds its assent next year, its approval can be dispensed with and the bill to abolish the AFNA will be presented to the King for his approval. Even if the royal assent is withheld, after 30 days, the bill will become law, several legal experts said. What political mileage did BN senators gain by delaying the repeal of the AFNA by 12 months?
Second, the numerical advantage that BN now enjoys in the Dewan Negara is likely to be short-lived. In theory, the Dewan Negara comprises 70 senators – 44 appointed by the King while each of the 13 states in this country is entitled to nominate two representatives to the upper house.
Currently, there are 33 senators from BN's three component parties – Umno, MCA and MIC – while 18 are from Pakatan, three from PAS and 14 collectively from political parties based in Sabah and Sarawak, Gerakan, the Indian Progressive Front and Hindraf.
Senators in this country serve a three-year term. When their term ends, PH will have the right to fill the vacancies among the 44 senators appointed by the King. Additionally, PH controls seven states – Johor, Malacca, Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Perak, Penang and Kedah – while Sabah is friendly to PH. This means PH can theoretically also nominate 16 senators.
Third, BN component members like Umno and MCA own newspapers or are closely linked to media organisations.
Given the fact BN now occupies the opposition benches, why does the now slimmer coalition support the continuing existence of the AFNA? A badly-drafted law, the AFNA could make it easier for victims to file law suits claiming millions in damages against TV3 as well as newspapers like Utusan Malaysia, The New Straits Times (NST) and The Star.
Fourth, a more nuanced stand on rescinding the AFNA would have enhanced public perception that BN is ready to assume the mantle of responsibility for providing a meaningful check and balance against PH.
Instead of criticising every announcement or policy proposed by the current ruling coalition, BN should maximise its limited political firepower and its resources by choosing carefully the issues to oppose PH at both federal and state level.
The AFNA is a case in point. BN senators could have proposed substantive amendments to the AFNA. BN senator Khairul Azwan Harun said the AFNA should be improved rather than repealed, an NST article says.
This suggests BN believes it is better for legislation – even if changes are needed – to remain as law rather than nullified. Curiously, it also implies BN has a high level of trust that the PH administration won't abuse the powers encapsulated in the ill-defined AFNA.
According to Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, during the debate in the Dewan Negara, a BN senator raised the issue of Section 7 of the AFNA, a clause that enables a victim of fake news to apply for a court order for the offending article to be withdrawn. What is pernicious is clause 7 allows the removal of the publication on an ex parte basis. This means the judge hears only the applicant and judgment is based only on testimony from the applicant.
While Hanipa conceded Section 7 needed to be looked into, he disagreed with the unnamed BN senator's contention the AFNA shouldn't be repealed for this reason.
Why is BN insisting on continuing to support the AFNA, a statute that could become a Sword of Damocles hanging over politicians belonging to the former ruling coalition and its media organisations?
Opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the writer and should not be attributed to any organisation she is connected with. She can be contacted at siokchoo@thesundaily.com